Well... this is liable to easily fall into political arguments so I'll engage in some tortured phrasing here to keep this uncontroversial. My thought is that the Republicans have long (since 1968 or so) sought political support from a large section of the population that they haven't had much interest in actually representing. And then this group has later felt betrayed by the lack of representation, over and over again. So their passion has increased.
So I think that's part of why technology has had such a huge effect - this group has always been there, but for the "first" time (speaking broadly) they've got the ability to have a direct relationship with a candidate who is truly representing them (or, may only be appearing to representing them, but doing such a convincing job at it that he's freaking out other Republicans).
As for how to define this population, it's tricky - I read a few essays a while back that called them "The Borderers" - but at any rate it's definitely more nuanced than calling them evangelicals or culturally conservative or isolationists, etc.
But, then the question is, why isn't this happening so much on the Democratic side? Is it that a greater number of Republican voters feel disenfranchised by their party [or government] and are thus taking things into their own hands, so to speak?
I think it's that Sanders is still part of the establishment in a way that Trump is not. Either Sanders or Clinton will graciously accept a loss and campaign for their opponent in a way that Trump may not.
Progressives should be worried about what will happen to the Democratic party after this election, though. It's probably going to become the new home of neoconservatives by the end of this decade (if not already), and who knows what other factions will flock to the Democrats if Trump actually does remake the Republican party into a right-wing nationalist one.
If you're a reliable Democrat (like myself) you might gloat for a while over the implosion of the imposing party, but a one-party state will really suck. I honestly hope the GOP can get their shit together sooner rather than later.
Great point bringing up the myopia of the modern political horse race. For progressives, a fracturing GOP may grant them another White House term. Though when the dust settles, they may be the ones left politically homeless as their party moves more to the right to grab more unsettled conservatives.
It makes me wonder if both parties will continue rocketing away from each other in the left-right spectrum or if a Trump nomination will resettle the status quo.
I think that's basically true - there just seems to be a wider variety of Republican voters than Democratic voters, so a candidate seeking the support of all Republicans is invariably going to leave a large chunk of them out in the cold when it comes time to make realistic choices.
This is also true for Democrats (isolationist vs interventionist is a big one) but there don't seem to be as many areas of huge cultural disagreement.
Well, in a way they already have: Obama was the enti-establishment candidate 8 years ago, with very little (or no) political base. Sanders this year is the same, except with less connection to minority voters -- but he's still making Hillary work hard for what was supposed to be a coronation.
He wasn't that anti-establishment. There were plenty of elected dems who were not that pro Clinton. Also Obama v Clinton race difference is she voted for the Iraq war which a sizable of dems were strongly against and Iraq was still going on. Now 8 years later anger has faded a bit and we don't see troops being killed.
8 years ago he was very much anti-establishment in message. "Change", "Hope" and "yes we can" were very much anti-establishment slogans in nature. The message changed post-primary, when he cut deals and adopted much of Hillary's platform and personnel, but he certainly defeated Clinton thanks to the combination of his outsider/anti-establishment credentials and his minority status (coupled with powerful oratory skills which are still on a different level). Whether part of the Dem establishment rode on his coat-tails, that's another story - what mattered was the perception of him being the anti-establishment underdog to the veteran Clinton (who, by then, had been extremely visible on the political scene for more than 15 years).
Obama was not anti establishment. He was not upsetting the Democratic party. He was anti-Bush. All of that was a protest against the poor governance by Bush.
Trump is anti establishment. He's not using the traditional method to nomination. He thumbs his nose at the Republican organs apparatchiks and nomenklatura.
Trump is also not only anti-Obama but anti-career politicians and additionally is channeling middle class anger the way the BLM movement channel poor blacks anger. It's people who don't care much about religion or social conservatism but have been ignored and taken for granted for decades by both sides.
He's basically the anti-"The Man" and before you day he's "the man" any successful movement requires support from a sympathetic part of the ruling or monied class who see their peers as being out of touch.
My thought is that the Republicans have long (since 1968 or so) sought political support from a large section of the population that they haven't had much interest in actually representing.
Bingo. I'm just old enough to remember hearing about Nixon's "silent majority" a few years after he used it; per Wikipedia:
The term was popularized by United States President Richard Nixon in a November 3, 1969, speech in which he said, "And so tonight—to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans—I ask for your support." In this usage it referred to those Americans who did not join in the large demonstrations against the Vietnam War at the time, who did not join in the counterculture, and who did not participate in public discourse. Nixon along with many others saw this group of Middle Americans as being overshadowed in the media by the more vocal minority.
And his record was very mixed: got us out of Vietnam ("Peace with honor", later betrayed, of course), detente with the Soviet Union was the best he could achieve there, which a lot of us groked, and the masterful opening with China, which was probably a necessary part of winning the Cold War.
Economically, though, ugh, although he was dealt a terrible hand. Closing the gold window (although that allowed Ford to allow us to own gold again), his wage and price controls with authoritarianism we hadn't seen since FDR and their inevitable distortions and nil accomplishments, establishing the EPA, OSHA etc. (which ran out of control not much later), heck, trucking and airline deregulation was a Carter thing. But we felt he was largely on our side, even if not so competent about it domestically. Ditto Ford, and Reagan of course 100%.
But since then ... do I need to, for this audience, detail the records of Bush father and son? McCain hates us with a burning passion, and have you ever heard of anyone calling himself a "severe" conservative aside from Romney ? Not I in 45 years of self-aware "conservatism" (scare quotes because of how that word has been degraded to the point of uselessness; I like the "Militant Right" nowadays).
You can reduce a lot of Trump's appeal to what one Iowa caucus put on his ballot: "Donald Trump, because fuck you". Or
You "conservative" "pundits" still don't get it: Trump isn't our candidate. He's our murder weapon. And the GOP is our victim.
We good, now?
(https://twitter.com/empireofjeff/status/632271934907138048) That's the GOP establishment, of course, which after way too many betrayals we have every intention of terminating with extreme prejudice, with Trump being just one instrumentality.
So I think that's part of why technology has had such a huge effect - this group has always been there, but for the "first" time (speaking broadly) they've got the ability to have a direct relationship with a candidate who is truly representing them (or, may only be appearing to representing them, but doing such a convincing job at it that he's freaking out other Republicans).
As for how to define this population, it's tricky - I read a few essays a while back that called them "The Borderers" - but at any rate it's definitely more nuanced than calling them evangelicals or culturally conservative or isolationists, etc.